Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementattorneytrialmotionwillrescission
settlementattorneytrialmotionwillrescission

Related Cases

Montgomery v. Aetna Plywood, Inc., 231 F.3d 399
View Case »
Virzi v. Grand Trunk Warehouse and Cold Storage Co., 571 F.Supp. 507, 37 Fed.R.Serv.2d 864
View Case »
Murphy v. Kmart Corp., 255 F.R.D. 497
View Case »
Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. 4, 130 S.Ct. 13, 175 L.Ed.2d 255, 78 USLW 3265, 78 USLW 3267, 78 USLW 4001, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13,564, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,833, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 3
View Case »
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Marriage of Gonzalez, 57 Cal.App.3d 736, 129 Cal.Rptr. 566

Facts

Virginia Thorpe Gonzalez filed for dissolution of marriage against Thomas P. Gonzalez on January 16, 1970. During the proceedings, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement on August 25, 1970, which the wife later sought to rescind, claiming it was signed under duress, mistake of fact, and mistake of law. The husband had threatened to take the children to Mexico and made other intimidating statements, which contributed to the wife's emotional distress at the time of signing the agreement. The trial court found that the husband had coerced the wife into signing the agreement, leading to the rescission.

Virginia Thorpe Gonzalez filed for dissolution of marriage against Thomas P. Gonzalez on January 16, 1970. During the proceedings, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement on August 25, 1970, which the wife later sought to rescind, claiming it was signed under duress, mistake of fact, and mistake of law.

Issue

Did the husband exert duress on the wife sufficient to justify the rescission of the marital settlement agreement?

Did the husband exert duress on the wife sufficient to justify the rescission of the marital settlement agreement?

Rule

Duress consists of threats that destroy a person's free agency and compel them to act against their will, which can include threats of unlawful confinement or injury.

Duress consists of threats that destroy a person's free agency and compel them to act against their will, which can include threats of unlawful confinement or injury.

Analysis

The court analyzed the husband's conduct and found that his threats created a state of fear and emotional distress in the wife, which deprived her of the ability to freely consent to the agreement. The court noted that the husband's threats were not merely legal assertions but included menacing statements about the children's custody and even threats to the wife's life. This context supported the conclusion that the wife signed the agreement under duress.

The court analyzed the husband's conduct and found that his threats created a state of fear and emotional distress in the wife, which deprived her of the ability to freely consent to the agreement.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision to set aside the marital settlement agreement and upheld the award of attorney's fees to the wife.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision to set aside the marital settlement agreement and upheld the award of attorney's fees to the wife.

Who won?

Virginia Thorpe Gonzalez prevailed in the case because the court found that the marital settlement agreement was signed under duress, which justified its rescission.

Virginia Thorpe Gonzalez prevailed in the case because the court found that the marital settlement agreement was signed under duress, which justified its rescission.

You must be